Post on 17-Aug-2018
Agroforestry Policy Review
Figure 1. Hazel coppice for bioenergy production is planted in rows between alleys of arable and vegetable crops managed
on an organic rotation in a silvoarable system at Wakelyns Agroforestry, Suffolk.
Dr. J. Smith
Agroecology Researcher
Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm, Hamstead Marshall,
Newbury, Berkshire, RG20 0HR
Kindly supported by funding from
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
2
COPYRIGHT
© Progressive Farming Trust Limited
Trading as
The Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm 2010
All Rights Reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication or any part of
or excerpt therefrom may be made in any form or by any means (including but not limited
to photocopying, recording, storing in any medium or retrieval system by electronic means
whether or not incidentally to some other use of this publication or transiently) without the
written permission of The Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm or in accordance with the
provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1994 (as amended). Any person who
does an unauthorised act in relation to this copyright work may be liable to criminal
prosecution and/or civil claims for damages.
The Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm believes that the information in this document is
accurate at the date of release but accepts no responsibility for any loss or other
consequence arising from omissions or inaccuracies contained herein.
The information in this document is subject to change. Revisions and updates will be issued
from time to time to document changes and/or additions.
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
3
Contents
1. Pillar I: Single Payment Scheme ...................................................................................................... 5
1.1 England .......................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland .......................................................................................... 7
1.3 Implications of Pillar I support for agroforestry within the UK..................................................... 7
2. Pillar II: Rural Development Policy .................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Article 44 ....................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 England .......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Energy Crops Scheme (ECS) ................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Environmental Stewardship (ES) ............................................................................................ 9
2.2.3 Farm Woodland Grants ........................................................................................................ 13
2.4 Wales ........................................................................................................................................... 14
2.5 Northern Ireland ......................................................................................................................... 15
2.5.2 The Northern Ireland Countryside Management Scheme (NICMS) .................................... 15
2.5.2 Forest Grant Schemes administered by the Forest Service ................................................. 16
2.6 Scotland....................................................................................................................................... 17
2.7 Implications of Pillar 2 support for agroforestry within the UK.................................................. 18
3. Relevance of agroforestry to other policy instruments ................................................................ 19
3.1 Nitrate Vulnerable Zones ............................................................................................................ 19
3.2The Water Framework Directive .................................................................................................. 20
3.3 Combating Climate Change – The Read Report .......................................................................... 20
3.4 UK Biomass Strategy ................................................................................................................... 20
3.5 Thematic Strategy on Soil Protection ......................................................................................... 20
4. Recommendations for policy changes necessary to support agroforestry within the EU and UK ... 22
4.1 Short-term (2011-2013) policy actions ....................................................................................... 22
4.1.1 Pillar I: Single Payment Scheme ........................................................................................... 22
4.1.2 Pillar II: Rural Development Policy ....................................................................................... 22
4.2 Long-term (2014-2020) policy actions ........................................................................................ 22
4.2.1 Pillar I: Single Payment Scheme ........................................................................................... 22
4.2.2 Pillar II: Rural Development Policy ....................................................................................... 23
5. Other options for support ................................................................................................................. 24
5.1 Payments for public goods .......................................................................................................... 24
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
4
5.2 Carbon credits ............................................................................................................................. 24
5.3 Community schemes ................................................................................................................... 25
5.4 LEADER funding ........................................................................................................................... 25
6. References ........................................................................................................................................ 26
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
5
Agroforestry Policy Review A lack of policy support is seen as one of the main barriers to wider adoption of agroforestry, with
the integration of trees at a low density into agricultural land challenging the conventional
specialisation of forestry and agricultural policy mechanisms (Dupraz et al., 2004). Within the EU, it is
necessary to examine how agroforestry fits into the two pillars of agricultural support; Pillar I - direct
aids and market support, and Pillar II - rural development, as well as within forestry policy schemes
for farm woodlands.
1. Pillar I: Single Payment Scheme The 2003 CAP reform that came into effect from 1st January 2005 replaced production-related
payments with the Single Payment Scheme. This awards a set amount per hectare of agricultural
land on the condition that the farmer complies with EU standards for public, animal and plant
health, environmental and animal welfare (‘cross-compliance’). Eligibility for support is of primary
concern for farmers considering agroforestry, which is not currently recognised as an accepted land-
use class within the SPS. SPS cannot be claimed for forest which includes woodland, trees and most
Christmas trees, but short rotation coppice, some grazed woodland, and land under some forestry
schemes are eligible. Woodland is defined as more than 50 trees per hectare which would classify
most agroforestry systems as woodland.
1.1 England
In England, the rules for the Single Farm Payment are set out in the 2010 Handbook (RPA, 2010). This
states that woodland should only be included within the SPS application if it meets one or more of
the following criteria (page 3; RPA, 2010):
it is being grazed (including pannage);
there are less than 50 trees per hectare and it can be grazed;
it is short rotation coppice; or
it is in a Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) scheme (such as English
Woodland Grant Scheme, Farm Woodland Premium Scheme or Entry Level Stewardship).
These are all classified as agricultural land, and although they might not be eligible for SPS payments,
they must meet cross compliance rules that require farmers to comply with a set of Statutory
Management Requirements and keep their land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition
(GAEC) (RPA, 2008). Woodland in an RDPE scheme is only eligible for payment if the land was eligible
for SPS in 2008 and subsequently afforested (land-use code SA2) (page 22; RPA, 2010).
Grazed Woodland (land use code PP1)
Grazed woodland with less than 50 trees per hectare is eligible for SPS payments. If there are more
than 50 trees/ha, it is still possible to claim aid (page 21/22; RPA, 2010):
if there is evidence of a history of grazing (for example, if trees have swelling at the base that
shows animals have been browsing);
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
6
if new plantings are protected from grazing.
The grazing must not damage the land ecologically, for example, it must not reduce the number of
existing tree seedling and saplings or reduce plants sensitive to grazing such as bramble. To claim
SPS for grazed woodland, farmers must deduct the area taken up by tree trunks and areas where
trees or bushes prevent the growth of vegetation suitable for grazing.
Other woodland
Land with more than 50 trees/ha is generally ineligible for SPS payment, particularly if the trees can
only be used to produce wood. However, land used for short rotation coppice is eligible (land use
code PC2), and the Handbook also states that it is possible to claim for an area with trees as long as
agricultural activities can be carried out in the same way as on land without trees (page 23; RPA,
2010). In this case, the area taken up by the trees must be removed from the application if this area,
together with other ineligible land or features, is 0.01 ha or more.
Other woody crops
Eligible crops that may feature as the woody component in agroforestry systems include (page 17;
RPA, 2010):
since 2009, land under permanent crops including top fruit and nuts are eligible
nursery crops (defined as areas of young woody plants grown in the open air, on soil in
greenhouses or under polytunnels for later transplantation (page 117; RPA, 2010)
vines
multiannual crops including raspberries, blackberries, mulberries, loganberries, black, white
or redcurrants, gooseberries, cranberries, bilberries, other fruit of the genus Vaccinium.
short rotation coppice including: alder, birch, hazel, ash, lime, sweet chestnut, sycamore,
willow and poplar. SRC is defined as “woody, perennial crops, the rootstock or stools
remaining in the ground after harvesting, with new shoots emerging in the following season”
(page 117; RPA, 2010). The maximum harvest cycle is set at 20 years.
Hedgerows
Hedgerows that are part of the field boundary, characteristic of the regional landscape and are
managed along good agricultural cropping and utilisation practice are included as part of the eligible
land area as long as the total width of the hedge is less than 6 metres (3 metres from its centre)
(page 29; RPA, 2010). Where the hedge is wider than this, it is treated as a temporary ineligible
feature and its area deducted from the eligible area of the field.
Area Payments for Nuts
Payments for nut orchards can be claimed separately from the SPS under the Area Payment for Nuts
scheme (page 51; RPA, 2010). Eligible nuts include almonds, hazelnuts or filberts, walnuts, pistachios
and locust beans. Orchards have to be a minimum of 0.1ha, with minimum tree densities/ha of 30
for locust beans, 50 for walnut, almonds and pistachios and 125 for hazelnuts. It is uncertain
whether nut trees within an agroforestry alley-cropping system would be eligible though, as the
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
7
Handbook states that an orchard is defined as ‘an unvarying and geographically continuous area
which is not divided by other crops or plantations’ (page 51; RPA, 2010). Isolated nut trees or single
rows of nut trees alongside roads or other crops do not classify as an orchard. The average payment
in 2010 is €120.75/ha. The Area Payment for Nuts scheme is due to end in 2012 at the latest, and
the funding will transfer to SPS.
1.2 Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
The devolved governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have adopted very similar rules
governing the Single Payment Schemes in their areas (DARDNI, 2010; The Scottish Government,
2010; Welsh Assembly Government, 2010a). Slight differences include varying specifications for
boundary hedgerows (in Scotland, hedgerow width must not exceed 2m into the field; in Northern
Ireland, boundary hedgerows must be less than 4m at the base), and the Area Payments for Nuts is
not available outside England.
1.3 Implications of Pillar I support for agroforestry within the UK
The eligibility of agroforestry systems for SPS within the UK depends to a great extent on the nature
of the woody component in the system. If the trees are managed for timber or wood fuel and tree
densities are above 50/ha, this area of land is ineligible for payments unless the area can be grazed
or agricultural activities can carry on in the same way as if trees weren’t present.
Agroforestry systems that include permanent crops such as top fruit, hardy perennial soft fruits such
as blackberries and raspberries, nuts and vines are eligible for payments, as are short rotation
coppice systems. In these cases, the field area containing the trees and crops would be split and
areas allocated to each component. Nursery crops are also eligible, although there is no mention of
eligibility of nurseries for seed or vegetative propagative production. However, trees and bushes for
amenity plantings, and their stock and seedlings, are eligible. While nut trees in widely spaced rows
of agroforestry systems can be supported under the SPS, they would not be eligible for additional
funding under the Area Payments for Nuts scheme. Boundary hedges are included in the area
eligible for aid, unless they exceed a certain width.
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
8
2. Pillar II: Rural Development Policy A Rural Development Policy was introduced into the EU as part of the CAP reforms under Agenda
2000 to form Pillar II. This provides support for the delivery of public goods from agriculture and the
development of rural areas. The three key themes of the European Commission’s Rural
Development Policy 2007-2013 are:
1. Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector.
2. Improving the environment and the countryside.
3. Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of the rural
economy.
Under the current RDP (2007-2013), support is structured along four axes (European Commission,
2010):
1. Axis 1 aims to improve the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector. Measures
that may be of relevance to agroforestry systems include Measure 122 ‘Improvement of the
economic value of forests’ and Measure 123 ‘Adding value to agricultural and forestry
products’. Capital investments, grants to businesses and training are the main mechanisms
of support.
2. Axis 2 aims to improve the environment by protecting and enhancing natural resources, and
preserving high nature value farming and forestry systems and cultural landscapes. This axis
includes agri-environment schemes as well as the only measures of direct application to
agroforestry: Measure 222 supports the establishment of agroforestry systems on
agricultural land. Within the UK, this has been implemented only in Northern Ireland. Other
measures that may be relevant for agroforestry include Measure 221 ‘First afforestation of
agricultural land’; and Measure 225 ‘Forest-environment payments’.
3. Axis 3 aims to enhance the quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural
economy. Several of the measures may be relevant to agroforestry, especially those systems
that have the potential for tourism or diversification into non-agricultural activities.
4. Axis 4 employs a bottom-up approach to rural development through the LEADER approach
(‘Links between the rural economy and development actions’) that promotes local
cooperation and networking. This Axis sits horizontally across the other three.
2.1 Article 44
Article 44 of the Rural Development Regulation (2007-2013) covers the first establishment of
agroforestry systems on agricultural land (European Council, 2005). It sets out that:
‘support shall be granted to farmers to create agroforestry systems combining extensive agriculture
and forestry systems. Support shall cover the establishment cost (70-85% of the establishment cost).’
Here agroforestry systems are defined as land use systems in which trees are grown in combination
with agriculture on the same land, and Christmas trees and fast-growing species for short-term
cultivation are excluded. In 2009, a review of implementation of forestry measures under the RDP by
member states found that 17 Regions or States (Cyprus, Guadeloupe, Guyane, Hungary, Lazio,
Lombardia, Marche, Sicilia, Umbria, Azores, Portugal (mainland), Andalucia, Aragon, Canarias,
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
9
Extramadura, Galicia, Northern Ireland) had adopted this Measure (European Commission, 2009).
Since then, France has incorporated Article 44 into its new RDP ‘Objectif Terres 2020’.
2.2 England
Within the UK, the main emphasis of the RDP is on Axis 2, with a focus on agri-environment schemes
and measures that have environmental objectives. Within England, the schemes of relevance to
agroforestry systems are the Energy Crops scheme, the Environmental Stewardship scheme, both
managed by Natural England on behalf of DEFRA, and the English Woodland Grant Scheme,
administered by the Forestry Commission.
2.2.1 Energy Crops Scheme (ECS)
Funding is provided through Axis 1 for the establishment of perennial energy crops with the
objective of increasing the amount of energy crops to substitute fossil fuels and help meet targets
for greenhouse gas emissions. This scheme contributes to the EU Biomass Action Plan and the
Government’s Biomass Strategy. Approved crops include the tall woody grass Miscanthus and short
rotation coppice of willow, poplar, ash, alder, hazel, silver birch and sycamore (Natural England,
2009). Producers must demonstrate that the crop has an energy end-use; this includes own use for
home or business. Payments support 50% of actual costs (suppliers/material/contractor costs) and
50% of on-farm costs (own labour/machinery). At least three hectares must be established, with a
minimum block size of 0.5 hectares. Under these criteria, it would be possible to establish SRC as an
agroforestry system under the Energy Crops Scheme as long as each area of woody crop was at least
0.5 hectares. However, in organic systems, there must be no overlap between Organic Farming
Scheme/Organic Aid Scheme/Organic Entry Level Scheme options and ECS (Natural England, 2009).
2.2.2 Environmental Stewardship (ES)
The Environmental Stewardship scheme is a voluntary agri-environment scheme open to all farmers
in England. In return for implementing a range of options designed to protect the natural and
historic environment, promote public access and protect natural resources, farmers and landowners
receive financial support. The ES has three elements: the Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) is the basic
level of ES, open to all farmers, with standard payments of £30/ha/yr; the Organic Entry Level
Stewardship (OELS) is the organic version of ELS, available on organic land, land under conversion or
farms that combine conventional and organic, with standard payments of £60/ha/yr; and the Higher
Level Stewardship (HLS) is a more selective and demanding scheme for farmers in high priority
situations or areas, with payments dependent on management options undertaken. The ELS and
OELS agreements run for 5 years, the HLS for 10 years.
Entry Level Stewardship (ELS)
To be eligible for ELS, farmers must choose from 60 options to reach a points target of 30 points per
hectare (Natural England, 2010a). Options that target woody features on farmland are limited and
include options for hedgerows and in-field trees.
Options for boundary features
These options recognise the value of hedgerows as landscape and historic features, wildlife habitats,
for stock management and shelter, and for reducing soil erosion. Boundary lines of predominantly
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
10
native shrubs (at least 80%) that are under regular management by trimming, traditional hedge-
laying or coppicing are eligible. Hedgerow management options determine minimum height of
hedgerows (Options EB1 & 2 = 1.5m; EB3 = 2m) and maximum frequency of cutting (Options EB1 & 2
= every 2 years; EB3 = every 3 years).
Options for trees and woodlands
These options target the cultural and
biodiversity value of farmland trees. Options
for in-field trees in arable fields (Option EC1)
and grassland (EC2) are available for trees
with a trunk diameter of over 30cm at breast
height. Trees in a group or line of more than
four with overlapping canopies are not
eligible, but if canopies do not overlap, each
tree can earn the specified points.
Cultivation, weed control, lime, fertiliser or
manure applications, feeding of stock and
storage of materials or machinery are
prohibited beneath the tree canopy and
extending 2m beyond, and fallen timber
must be left in situ within the protected
area.
In the 2010 ELS Handbook, new options have been introduced for the management of hedgerow
trees, reflecting their importance for farmland biodiversity (Natural England, 2010a). Option EC23
supports the identification, tagging and protection of saplings of locally native tree species to
encourage the establishment of new or young hedgerow trees and replace an ageing hedgerow tree
population. A maximum of two trees per 100m of hedgerow, and at least 20m between trees, is
specified to allow each tree to develop a full crown.
Uplands Entry Level Scheme (UELS)
A new strand of the ELS, the Uplands ELS replaces the former Hill Farm Allowance. In addition to the
standard ELS options, a number of others are available under Uplands ELS. A compulsory
requirement relevant to agroforestry systems is a restriction on supplementary feeding of livestock
in native woodland (defined as a group of trees covering at least 0.1 ha, with overlapping canopies,
at least half of which are native species) except during periods of extreme weather. The optional
measures of relevance to agroforestry systems are:
Hedgerow restoration (UB14). This aims to support the development of tall, thick, continuous
hedges to act as corridors between other habitats, through restoration by hedge-laying or hedge
gapping-up.
Woodland livestock exclusion (UC22). This option aims to exclude all livestock from woodland parcels
below 3 ha in size, of at least 50% native species, to allow regeneration of trees and shrubs and
Figure 2 The protected area around in-field trees
(taken from Natural England, 2010a)
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
11
woodland flowers. Farmers must agree to make the woodland boundaries stock-proof and exclude
all livestock from the woodland for the agreement period.
Organic Entry Level Scheme (OELS)
Land must be managed according to organic standards and be registered with an approved Organic
Inspection Body (Natural England, 2010c). The options relevant to agroforestry systems discussed
above under the ELS are also available under the OELS and the only additional support is a
Conversion Aid Payment for top fruit orchards. These payments support the conversion of top fruit
orchards planted with pears, plums, cherries and apples at a rate of £600/ha/yr for 3 years. Orchards
for alcoholic drink production are not eligible. Under the previous version of OELS, minimum
densities were specified as 80 trees/ha; in the latest version, tree density is not specified and it
states that orchards must be fully stocked at the appropriate spacing for the species and variety of
fruit tree. This allows Natural England to assess individual applications and approve or reject
agreements based on evaluation of cost effectiveness. There are no minimum or maximum sizes of
blocks. An Upland OELS is also available with the same options on offer as described above in the
ELS.
Higher Level Stewardship (HLS)
The HLS is a discretionary scheme in which agreements must represent good value for money and
achieve maximum environmental benefits (Natural England, 2010b). Farmers choose from over 90
options; those relevant to agroforestry systems include options for boundary hedgerow features, for
trees, woodland and scrub, and for orchards.
Options for boundary features
These options (HB 11 and 12) support the management of hedgerows that sustain target species of
farmland birds, insects or mammals, or that make a significant contribution to the local landscape
character and/or are historically important boundaries. Management includes sympathetic trimming
to improve hedgerow structure, and encouraging a diversity of hedgerows across the farm. A Capital
Works Plan can fund works such as laying, coppicing, planting up gaps or establishing new hedgerow
trees.
Options for trees, woodland and scrub
These options recognise the historic and environmental value of traditional agroforestry systems
combining livestock and woodland management. Ancient woodlands, wood pastures and parklands
contain ancient trees, old coppice stools and pollards, which provide important wildlife habitats as
well as being of historic interest. The environmental benefits of woodland and hedges to protect
soils and watercourses are also recognised. Native species are recommended. These options are not
available if the woodland is under any of the farm woodland schemes.
Options for ancient trees in arable fields (HC5) or intensively managed grass fields (HC6) aim to
protect trees by establishing a 15m grass buffer around the base, minimising damage by livestock
and soil compaction, and retaining all tree limbs and standing or fallen dead wood.
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
12
Options for the maintenance or restoration of
wood pasture and parkland (HC12 and 13) that
support a number of ancient trees or parkland
features aim to protect the wildlife, historic and
landscape character. These sites may be
currently under arable cultivation, ungrazed or
planted with conifers or other inappropriate
trees. Management includes protecting trees
from livestock damage, grazing, no fertiliser
applications, no cultivations and no re-seeding.
Option HC14 supports the creation of wood
pasture on previous wood pasture sites or on
sites next to, or linking, existing areas of wood
pasture. Creation by careful and flexible grazing management to allow natural regeneration of trees
and shrubs is recommended, although seeding a specific grass mixture or planting additional trees is
allowed where necessary.
Where woodlands are part of the farmed landscape or part of the management of the agricultural
holding (e.g. grazed), options HC7 and 8 can be used to maintain or restore these farm woodlands to
enhance their wildlife and landscape value. Woodlands with silvicultural objectives should use the
English Woodland Grant Scheme. Management under these options include maintaining rides and
glades by grazing or cutting, high forest management and rotational coppicing. Restoration may
require excluding livestock, removing inappropriate species, planting, protecting trees from grazing
and re-introducing selective felling or coppicing to restructure the habitat.
Options HC9 and HC10 can be used to create small areas of new woodland (less than 1 ha) to benefit
wildlife and the local landscape, and to protect soils and watercourses. Flood plain woodland can be
created in riparian zones to act as buffers against diffuse pollution and mitigate flooding, in
accordance with the Environment Agency’s Catchment Flood Management Plans.
Options for orchards
These options provide support for
traditional orchards characterised by widely
spaced or half standard fruit trees of old
varieties planted at low densities (less than
150 trees/ha) in permanent grassland.
These orchards include apple (for fruit or
cider), pear (for fruit or perry), cherry,
plum, damson or cobnut plantations.
Existing orchards over 30 years old are
eligible for maintenance or restoration
options, while remnant or recently planted
orchards are supported by an orchard
Figure 3 Wood pasture in Hampshire (taken from Natural
England, 2010a)
Figure 4 Traditional orchard (taken from Natural England 2010c)
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
13
creation option. Those sites that can provide public amenity, particularly public access, will be given
priority.
Options for the maintenance or restoration of high-value traditional orchards are aimed either at
existing traditional fruit and nut orchards that are no longer managed primarily for production (HC18
and 20) or those in commercial productions that contribute to the historical landscape character of
the area (HC19). Management includes maintaining characteristic tree forms, protecting trees from
livestock damage, retaining and protecting all mature standing trees, retaining some standing dead
trees and dead wood on living trees, and managing the sward through hay-cutting or grazing.
Restoration includes restorative pruning, re-introducing annual pruning, a tree-planting programme
and establishing or re-introducing management of a grass sward. For orchards in production, an
agreed programme of crop protection must be followed and other management tailored to site
conditions and fruit varieties.
Option HC21 supports the establishment of traditional orchards on small sites (less than 1 ha) that
are known to have been orchard in the past, or are remnants, and requires the recommendation of a
specialist to identify appropriate sites based on remnant trees or old map records. Recently planted
traditional orchards may also be eligible and this option may also support the extension of orchard
habitat next to sites supporting threatened species such as the noble chafer beetle. Traditional
varieties on vigorous rootstocks must be used, and vegetation controlled with mulch or targeted
herbicide within a 1m diameter of the base. Formative pruning and prevention of damage by
livestock is required.
2.2.3 Farm Woodland Grants
In England, farm woodland grants are managed by the Forestry Commission. The Farm Woodland
Scheme and Farm Woodland Premium Scheme are now closed to new applicants, and have been
replaced by English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS). This has a suite of grants available for both the
stewardship of existing woodlands and the creation of new woodlands. As part of the EWGS, the
Woodland Creation Grant (WCG) aims to “encourage the creation of new woodlands where they
deliver the greatest public benefits, including annual Farm Woodland Payments to compensate for
agricultural income forgone” http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-6dcegu.
The Woodland Creation Grant is available only on bare land (including woodland open space) that
has been under a non-woodland use or land cover for at least 10 years. There is no minimum size for
the new woodland, but as the requirement is to create a new woodland rather than a group of trees,
planting areas should usually be larger than 0.25ha and wider than 30m on average, with a minimum
of 15m at any point (Forestry Commission England, 2009). Woodland intended primarily as a
biomass fuel is not eligible. Five woodland categories prescribe the characteristics, tree densities and
spacing eligible for the WCG. For four of the five categories, density requirements of above 1100/ha
prevents the development of agroforestry. The fifth category, Special Broadleaved, requires a
minimum of 100 stems/ha of appropriate single species broadleaved trees grown at wide spacing up
to a maximum of 10m.
Farm Woodland Payments are compensation payments for the loss of agricultural income following
conversion of agricultural land to forest, as well as contributions towards the costs of planting and
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
14
looking after the trees. The requirements of the WCG, set out above, must be met to be eligible for
Farm Woodland Payments. Compensation rates, in addition to the rates awarded through the
Woodland Creation Grant, vary from £300/ha/yr-1 on arable land in the lowlands, to £60/ha/yr-1 on
unimproved land or land in the Uplands.
2.4 Wales
The Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007 to 2013 provided support for a suite of agri-
environment schemes: Tir Cynnal, (entry level AES) and Tir Gofal, (higher level AES), Tir Mynydd
(support for less favoured areas), the Organic Farming Scheme, and the Improved Land Premium
(previously the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme). These schemes are now closed to new applicants
and the schemes are being integrated into a single scheme, Glastir, a new Sustainable Land
Management Scheme for Wales, managed by the Department for Rural Affairs (Welsh Assembly
Government, 2010a).
Glastir has three elements – an All-Wales Element (AWE) open to all eligible farmers in Wales, a
Targeted Element (TE) with a focus on environmental issues that need a co-ordinated complex or
large-scale response, and a Common Land Element (CLE) that provides support for environmental
improvements on common land (Welsh Assembly Government, 2010b). Additional funding is
available for Organic Conversion, and there is an Agricultural Carbon Reduction and Efficiency
Scheme (ACRES) that provides grants to purchase new technology and equipment to enable the
efficient use of energy, water and manure or slurry. The inclusion of woodland grants, including farm
woodlands, within Glastir is currently under review.
The AWE consists of two components; the Whole Farm Code (WFC) which is a set of compulsory
requirements, and Management Options that farmers can select to achieve a points threshold.
Organic land automatically reduces the points threshold by 50%. Farmers can choose whether to
include woodland in their AWE. If they exclude the area of woodland, their points threshold is
reduced as is the overall payment; if the woodland area is included in the AWE application, it is
eligible for payment but they are prohibited from placing Management Options within the
woodland.
As part of the compulsory Whole Farm Code, in-field and veteran trees must be retained and
protected, with no cultivation below the tree canopy (Welsh Assembly Government, 2010c).
Voluntary Management Options relevant to agroforestry include:
Connectivity Options.
Options for creating a wildlife corridor of trees and shrubs. Establishing a 2m-wide double staggered
row of native hedging trees and shrubs on improved land aims to improve connectivity between
existing hedgerows (Options 1 and 2). Option 3 supports the establishment of a wooded strip, 5 to
15m wide, comprised of at least 5 species of native trees and shrubs at a density of 1600/ha.
Options for hedgerow management to improve connectivity. Management options range from
simple hedgerow management that requires hedges to be at least 1.5m wide and 1.5m high, less
than 50% of the length to be cut in one year, and saplings left to grow into hedge trees (Option 4), to
enhanced management that maintains hedgerows of at least 2m in height, and cuts no more than a
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
15
third of the length each year (Option 5). Option 6 restores gappy hedgerows by double fencing and
replanting native shrubs.
Options for management of streamside corridors along watercourses. Option 9 supports the
creation of a streamside corridor on improved land on one side (9a) or both sides (9b) with tree
planting, to enhance landscape character, encourage biodiversity, remove carbon dioxide and act as
a buffer to reduce diffuse pollution and agrochemical runoff. Trees must be planted at a denisity of
30 per 100 linear metres, using native species.
Options for woodland edges. Option 24 allows woodland edge to develop out into fields adjoining
improved land, with the aim of increasing the size of existing woodland, enhancing landscape
character and encouraging biodiversity. This involves removing the original fence and creating a new
fenceline 6m out into the field.
Landscape feature options.
Option 13 supports the planting of individual native trees on improved land, to enhance landscape
character, historic value and habitat. Options for orchard management include restoring a traditional
orchard and creating a new orchard on improved land.
The second element of Glastir, the Targeted Element, includes a number of options relevant to
agroforestry. These include the creation or restoration and maintenance of tree shelter belts to
contribute to water management, support for both existing and new semi-natural broadleaved
woodlands, the restoration of planted ancient woodland sites to enhance biodiversity, and
management of existing improved and semi-improved wood pasture.
2.5 Northern Ireland
2.5.2 The Northern Ireland Countryside Management Scheme (NICMS)
The NICMS is the agri-environment scheme in the Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme
2007-2013 (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2007). The scheme includes
compulsory management requirements covering cross-compliance, field boundary management,
and farm nutrient and waste management. If certain habitats such as grasslands, wetlands,
woodlands and moorlands are present on the farm, they must be managed according to
management prescriptions and participants must meet a minimum level of environmental benefit
(Minimum Entry Environmental Benefit). In addition to these compulsory requirements, farmers can
choose a range of options (Habitat Enhancement Options and Enhancement Measures) which
contribute towards meeting the MEEB. Aspects of the NICMS of relevance to agroforestry include:
Compulsory management requirements for hedgerow field boundaries.
These are primarily aimed at enhancing biodiversity value and include restrictions on timing and
frequency of cutting, hedge height, and trees in hedges.
Management of woodlands and parklands.
Eligible woodlands must have 50% tree canopy cover and must contain at least 50% native broadleaf
tree species. With the aim of enhancing the conservation value of these woodlands, two
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
16
management options are available; no grazing or light grazing. The light grazing option allows
summer grazing at a maximum density of 0.5 LU/ha. Parkland and lowland wood pasture is valued as
a traditional landscape feature and planting and restoration activities can be supported to recreate
the characteristic design of the original site.
Habitat Enhancement Options:
Riparian zone management. Aiming to contribute towards improved water quality and
increased biodiversity, one option available is to plant native trees along waterways. A
minimum width of 2m is required and 80-100% of planted trees must be native broadleaf or
conifers, from locally sourced seed where possible.
Field boundary restoration. Hedge restoration and regeneration including laying, coppicing,
replanting and planting in gaps.
Ungrazed grass margin planted with native trees. Grass margins of at least 2m width from
which livestock are excluded can also be planted with native trees, along the same
guidelines as for the riparian zone management above, to provide additional habitat and
resources for farmland birds and mammals.
Traditional orchards. Planting of new orchards on improved and semi-improved grassland
aims to conserve local history, ensure the survival of heritage varieties and enhance
landscape characteristics. Orchards must be at least 0.01ha and include three approved
varieties, and may be mown or grazed where trees are protected by guards. It is also
permitted to have small areas of vegetables, fruit bushes and other crops for own use
planted within the orchard.
Enhancement Measures
Tree planting and management. Payments are available to support the planting of parkland
trees, traditional fruit trees, trees and whips for screening buildings or interplanting, and
tree management activities including surgery, pollarding and restorative pruning of
orchards.
2.5.2 Forest Grant Schemes administered by the Forest Service
Woodland Grant Scheme
As part of the NIRDP 2007-2013, the Woodland Grant Scheme aims to support the creation and
sustainable management of woodlands and forests and to improve the local economy and provide
an alternative land use to agriculture. This is the only scheme within the UK that specifically
addresses Article 44 of the RDR for the first establishment of agroforestry. Establishment grants are
available for agroforestry systems, as long as the aims of the Woodland Grant Scheme are met.
Payments are calculated pro rata up to 400 stems/ha (Jim Mcadam, AFBI, pers comm. 2010).
Farm Woodland Premium Scheme
This scheme supports the creation of new woodlands on farmland to improve the landscape and
increase biodiversity by compensating for agricultural income foregone. Annual payments are made
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
17
for a period of 10-15 years. New woodlands must meet the criteria of the Woodland Grant Scheme,
but agroforestry is not eligible in the FWPS.
Short Rotation Coppice Scheme
This scheme provides support for the establishment costs of SRC crops for renewable energy, with a
minimum qualifying area of 3 ha.
2.6 Scotland
The Scottish Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 sets out a range of options for Land
Managers (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP/RuralPriorities/Options accessed
17/08/10). From autumn 2010 the scheme is limited to Axis 2 agri-environment and forestry options
only. Those relevant to agroforestry include:
Water margins and enhanced riparian buffer areas.
Management options to protect water courses from erosion and pollution and enhance biodiversity.
Riparian buffers may be planted with native trees of local origin.
Hedgerow Options
Management to enhance existing, restored or new hedgerows for biodiversity by following a
controlled cutting regime, filling in gaps by coppicing, laying or planting. Management of extended
hedges that are wider and taller than normal with undisturbed grass margins alongside.
Wood Pasture
Management of ancient wood pasture for biodiversity by managing grazing levels, maintaining
veteran trees and introducing or encouraging regeneration of appropriate trees.
Woodland Creation
This option supports the creation of new woods that meet one of six designs: productive low or high
cost conifer woodland, productive broadleaved woodland, native woodland, naturally regenerated
native woodland and mixed conifer/broadleaf woodland. Plantings must meet UK Forestry Standard
requirements, be at least 15m in width with a minimum stocking density of 1100/ha depending on
the woodland type. Woodland creation on agricultural land will be supported by annual payments
per hectare for tree maintenance for 5 years after planting. An additional Farmland Premium is
available to cover the loss of agricultural income for either 10 or 15 years.
Sustainable Management of Forests
Sustainable management of forests and woodlands of high environmental value, for example, areas
of native woodland under active management or where domestic livestock needs to be removed to
bring them to a favourable conditions; areas of native woodland where controlled livestock grazing
will promote biodiversity; and areas of woodland that have a high level of recreational use.
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
18
Woodland Improvement
A Woodland Improvement Grant is also available that is aimed at improving existing woodlands for
Biodiversity Action Plan species and habitats.
2.7 Implications of Pillar 2 support for agroforestry within the UK
Currently, there is no direct support available for agroforestry in the UK within the RDP, except
within Northern Ireland, where Article 44 has been implemented. Two schemes that can provide
support for agroforestry in England, although not implicit in their design, are the Energy Crops
Scheme and Conversion Aid payments for top fruit orchards. The Energy Crops Scheme states a
minimum block size of 0.5 ha, which potentially could fit within an agroforestry design, while the
conversion aid payment for organic top fruit orchards has no minimum block size but requires
certain planting densities.
The primary focus of agri-environment schemes within the UK is to protect the environment. Most
options aim to enhance the environmental, biodiversity or cultural value of farmland through careful
management of existing features such as hedgerows or the introduction of semi-natural habitats
including grass buffers. As such, productivity is of secondary importance. While agroforestry systems
provide a means of improving ecosystem service delivery on farmland, the management needed to
maintain productivity often conflicts with management requirements specified by the schemes. The
biodiversity and cultural value of permanent woody features such as hedgerows and in-field trees
are targeted under all AES’s, promoting the use of native species and carefully controlling the cutting
regime to create a valuable habitat. Traditional agroforestry methods such as parklands, wood
pastures and traditional orchards are also valued particularly for their cultural heritage, and several
options support the restoration and maintenance of these systems. In both cases, management is
targeted at improving the biodiversity and/or cultural value of these features, and their value as
multifunctional systems that balance productivity with environmental protection is not considered.
Farm woodland schemes are available across the UK to provide compensation for the loss of
agricultural income following conversion of agricultural land to forest, as well as contributions
towards the costs of planting and looking after the trees. Within most of these schemes, tree
densities are above those that would be found in an agroforestry system, the exception being in
Northern Ireland. Here, they have adopted Article 44 which supports the first establishment of
agroforestry, and payments are made on a pro rata basis depending on tree density.
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
19
3. Relevance of agroforestry to other policy instruments In Europe, agroforestry has the potential to address the three key themes of the European
Commission’s Rural Development Policy 2007-2013:
1. Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector. A central hypothesis of
agroforestry research is that complementarity of resource capture by trees and crops should
lead to increased yields in agroforestry systems compared to forestry or agricultural
monocultures (Cannell et al., 1996). By combining crops or livestock with a tree component,
it is possible to generate income in the short-term from the agricultural element, in addition
to the long-term investment in the trees, which should increase competitiveness over a
forestry-only enterprise. Agroforestry can also bring marginal land into production, and by
reducing reliance on synthetic inputs, could potentially improve efficiency.
2. Improving the environment and the countryside. Integrating trees on farmland has many
environmental benefits including enhancing soil fertility, reducing nutrient leaching,
reducing soil and wind erosion, improving water quality and regulating hydrological cycles,
enhancing biodiversity and landscape quality, increasing aesthetics, remediating polluted
land, mitigating greenhouse gases and sequestering carbon (Jose, 2009). Agroforestry can
also reduce resource-use pressure on native woodlands and slow rates of deforestation
(Bhagwat et al., 2008). As a multi-functional biodiverse system, agroforestry systems are
predicted to have greater resilience to the effects of climate change (Schroeder, 1994;
Montagnini and Nair, 2004; Peichl et al., 2006; Schoeneberger, 2009).
3. Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of the rural
economy. There are many perceived socio-economic benefits of agroforestry, including
improved rural employment opportunities, diversification of local economies and products,
and non-market benefits associated with landscape, aesthetics, ecosystem services and
recreation.
More specifically, the environmental benefits of integrating trees into agricultural systems can
contribute to meeting the aims of a number of mandatory EU regulations in force within the UK,
including the European Nitrates Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Renewable Energy
Strategy and the Soil Protection Strategy.
3.1 Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
The European Nitrates Directive calls for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) to be identified and for
those farmers with land in NVZs to comply with rules to tackle nitrate losses from agriculture. Within
England, 68% of agricultural land is designated as NVZs (DEFRA, 2009). The mandatory Action
Programme of measures to reduce nitrate losses targets the application and storage of both
chemical fertilizers and livestock manures. Research in the US has shown that agroforestry systems
can reduce nutrient losses compared to conventional agricultural practices due to the ‘safety net’
ability of tree roots to take up nitrate leached below the rooting system of crops, and riparian
buffers in particular are designed to target pollution run-off into waterways (Nair and Graetz, 2004;
Borin et al., 2009). By accessing nutrients from lower soil horizons and recycling these into the top
soil via leaf fall, trees can reduce the need for fertilizer inputs. The inclusion of nitrogen-fixing tree
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
20
species such as alder can enhance nitrogen availability to the adjacent crop; studies have shown
significant transfer of fixed nitrogen from alders to alley-cropped maize (Jose et al., 2004).
3.2The Water Framework Directive
The EU Water Framework Directive, adopted in 2000 and as part of UK law in 2003, provides a
framework for the protection and management of surface and ground waters with the aim of
reaching a common standard of water quality across Europe
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html accessed 17.08.10). The
Directive provides, among other things, for the identification and analysis of European waters, on
the basis of individual river basin districts, and the adoption of management plans and programmes
of measures appropriate for each body of water. These River Basin Management Plans have been
developed in collaboration with organisations and individuals and identify the main issues relating to
each river basin. Management Plans detail a wide range of measures for agriculture and the rural
land management sector, targeting the control of pollutants such as nitrates, abstraction, and
physical modification. Integrating trees within the agricultural landscape could help mitigate
pollution from runoff and leaching, and could alter the hydromorphology of a basin.
3.3 Combating Climate Change – The Read Report
This report looks at the potential of UK forests and woodlands to mitigate and adapt to climate
change (Read et al., 2009). The report highlights the contribution of woodland as a carbon sink and
estimates that planting new woodland on an extra 4% of land (23,200 ha) over the next 40 years
would store 10% of the UK’s predicted GHG emissions by the 2050s. Promoting wood fuel and wood
based products as substitutions for fossil fuel based products is identified as a key action to reduce
carbon emissions in the UK.
3.4 UK Biomass Strategy
The UK Biomass Strategy (DEFRA, 2007) promotes a major expansion in the supply and use of
biomass fuel within the UK to meet the Governments Renewable Energy Strategy target of 15% of
energy from renewable sources by 2020. The Biomass Strategy identifies the potential to use a
further 350,000 ha across the UK by 2020 to bring the total land available for biofuel and energy
crops to 17% of total UK arable land, thus supporting a biomass resource of approximately 96.2 TWh
(8.3 Mtoe). The Strategy recognises that this will conflict with other land uses as well as having
implications for biodiversity and the landscape, and so seeks a sustainable approach based on
lessons learnt from more traditional forms of agriculture and an increased understanding of
ecosystem functioning. This demand for a multifunctional approach to land use fits well within the
agroforestry ideology where perennial woody crops can be integrated within agriculture to the
benefit of both biomass and crop or livestock production while maintaining or enhancing ecosystem
services.
3.5 Thematic Strategy on Soil Protection
The Soil Thematic Strategy aims to develop an adequate level of soil protection across Europe,
recognising the socio-economic and environmental importance of conserving and protecting this
non-renewable resource (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/index_en.htm accessed 26/08/10).
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
21
As part of the Strategy, the proposed Directive has three strands – identification of problem areas at
risk of erosion, decline in organic matter, compaction and landslides; preventive and mitigation
measures to ensure sustainable use of the soil; and operational measures to act upon the risk areas.
The Directive has not yet been adopted due to the opposition of several Member States. A major
role of agroforestry is in soil management, including the control of erosion and maintenance and
improvement of soil fertility (Young, 1997). This has been of particular importance in tropical
systems with impoverished soils, but is now of increasing relevance in temperate systems where
intensive agriculture has degraded soil resources.
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
22
4. Recommendations for policy changes necessary to support
agroforestry within the EU and UK Within the UK, where subsidies can represent a significant proportion of farm income, agroforestry
has a limited future if it is ineligible for support payments. Changes to current UK and EU
agricultural policies would be needed to fully support widespread uptake of agroforestry. Under
Pillar I, agroforestry needs to be recognised by the EU as a valid land use to be eligible for Single
Farm Payments, while under Pillar II, adoption of Article 44 across the whole of the UK would
support the first establishment of agroforestry. It is less clear how agroforestry could fit within
existing agri-environment schemes, although it may be possible to develop options that reflect the
environmental benefits of an agroforestry approach. To promote agroforestry as a sustainable
approach to production, there is a need to identify clear market and policy reasons for providing
support, by collating, managing and, through research, providing evidence on the benefits of
agroforestry to balance production with delivery of ecosystem services.
4.1 Short-term (2011-2013) policy actions
4.1.1 Pillar I: Single Payment Scheme
Under current policy support schemes, the main focus for increasing support for agroforestry within
the UK needs to be on promoting awareness of agroforestry among policy makers and scheme
administrators. Although certain agroforestry systems fit within the current Single Payment Scheme
framework (e.g. top fruit and nuts, short rotation coppice), the definition of woodland as 50
stems/ha mean that most agroforestry systems are classified as woodland and therefore excluded
from support. However, SPS rules state that it is possible to claim for an area with trees as long as
agricultural activities can be carried out in the same way as on land without trees. This is clearly the
case for well designed and managed agroforestry systems, but it is uncertain how this is assessed by
Natural England. By raising awareness of what agroforestry is, and the productive and protective
advantages of this approach, scheme administrators may be encouraged to take a more sympathetic
and flexible attitude towards interpreting and applying this rule, thus allowing agroforestry systems
with greater than 50 stems/ha to maintain eligibility for the SFP.
4.1.2 Pillar II: Rural Development Policy
Within the UK, only in Northern Ireland has Article 44 been adopted, and this has been implemented
through pro rata payments in the Woodland Grant Scheme. It appears that this approach has not
been very successful, with low take-up (Jim Mcadam, AFBI, pers comm. 2010). Adoption of Article 44
on a pro rata basis within existing Farm Woodland grant schemes in England, Scotland and Wales,
combined with promotional activities to highlight to producers the availability of support for, and
the benefits of, this approach, would encourage greater establishment of agroforestry across the UK.
4.2 Long-term (2014-2020) policy actions
4.2.1 Pillar I: Single Payment Scheme
For agroforestry to be accepted by the EU as a valid land use under SPS, a clear and practical
definition is needed. This is difficult though, as agroforestry systems comprise a wide range of
designs and types. A working party of the Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe (SAFE) project
proposed the following definition (Lawson et al., 2005):
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
23
“Agroforestry systems refer to agricultural land use systems in which high-stemmed trees are grown
in combination with agricultural production on the same parcel. The tree component of agroforestry
can be isolated trees, tree-hedges or regularly spaced low density tree stands. An agroforestry parcel
is defined by two characteristics: at least 50% of the plot is in crop or pasture production; and tree
density less than 200/ha (of stems greater than 15cm diameter at 1.3m height), including boundary
trees.”
However, by restricting this definition to high-stemmed trees, systems that include low-branching
trees (e.g. top fruit) or hedge-like structures (e.g. short rotation coppice) would be excluded. By
removing the ‘high-stemmed’ constraint, this definition should cover the full range of systems.
4.2.2 Pillar II: Rural Development Policy
An alternative solution to incorporating Article 44 into existing Farm Woodland grant schemes
within the UK would be to create a separate scheme, similar to the Energy Crops Scheme, which
would provide payments for the establishment of agroforestry (70-85% of the establishment cost).
Provided that the systems meet SPS rules for eligibility and therefore be able to access ongoing
payments, this approach would allow farmers to meet the often considerable costs involved with
establishing agroforestry.
Within the existing agri-environment schemes, traditional agroforestry systems including wood
pasture, grazed orchards and parklands are supported by payments in recognition of their cultural
and biodiversity values. Management options for other woody features including hedgerows, in-field
trees and woodlands are based on enhancing their value for biodiversity, and therefore may not be
compatible with a productive agroforestry approach. New options could be developed specifically
for silvoarable and silvopastoral systems to reflect their many environmental benefits, which allows
for management to maximise production. Combining these options with others such as wild bird
seed or nectar flower mixtures may provide additional value for both biodiversity and ecosystem
services such as pollination and pest control in both the woody and agricultural components.
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
24
5. Other options for support
5.1 Payments for public goods
Recently, there has been considerable interest in placing a monetary value on the delivery of
ecosystem services or public goods, such as soil protection and carbon sequestration. Porter et al
(2009) calculated the values of market and non-market ecosystem services of a novel combined food
and energy agroforestry system in Taastrup, Denmark. Belts of fast-growing trees (hazel, willow and
alder) for bioenergy production are planted at right angles to fields of cereal and pasture crops, and
the system is managed organically with no inputs of pesticides or inorganic N. Field-based estimates
of ecosystem services including pest control, nitrogen regulation, soil formation, food and forage
production, biomass production, soil carbon accumulation, hydrological flow into ground water
reserves, landscape aesthetics and pollination by wild pollinators produced a total value of US
$1074 ha-1 of which 46% is from market ecosystem services (production of food, forage and
biomass crops) and the rest from non-market ecosystem services. Porter et al (2009) then
extrapolated these values to the European scale and calculated that the value of nonmarket
ecosystem services from this novel system exceeds current European farm subsidy payments.
Obviously there are many challenges involved with using an ecosystem services or public goods
approach to developing a support scheme for sustainable agricultural practices, but there has been
much progress in the field of ecological economics recently and increased awareness at policy level
of the potential of this approach (Cooper et al., 2009).
5.2 Carbon credits
One particular area of environmental services where there has been more progress is the potential
of an agroforestry approach to conserve and sequester C while maintaining land for food production
and reducing deforestation and degradation of remaining natural forests. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol
calls on participating countries to reduce the rising levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases by
decreasing fossil fuel emissions and accumulating C in soils and vegetation of terrestrial ecosystems.
It provides a mechanism by which countries that emit carbon in excess of agreed limits can purchase
carbon credits from countries that manage carbon sinks. Leading the way with establishing tradable
securities of carbon sinks to off-set emissions, Costa Rica invested $14 million in 1997 for the
Payment for Environmental Services (PES), with 80% of funding coming from a tax on fossil fuels and
20% from international of carbon from public protected areas. This scheme lead to the reforestation
of 6500 ha, the sustainable management of 10,000 ha of natural forests and the preservation of
79,000 ha of private natural forests (Montagnini and Nair, 2004). In 2003 the scheme was expanded
to include agroforestry systems, and the Costa Rican government budgeted $400,000 for the
integration of agroforestry management into the C trading schemes with payments depending on
the number of trees present on the farm (Oelbermann et al., 2004). Introducing carbon payments to
landowners and managers of agroforestry systems in temperate regions opens the way to obtaining
additional income from these systems and may increase the attractiveness of establishing an
agroforestry system, as well as adding value to established systems such as riparian buffers,
shelterbelts, silvopastoral and silvoarable systems.
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
25
5.3 Community schemes
The socio-economic value of agroforestry for poor smallholders in marginal and low-input systems in
the tropics is well recognised (World Agroforestry Centre, 2008). However, with a growing
awareness of issues such as food miles, food safety and security, there has been increased interest in
sustainable, local food production within the UK. Local food production schemes with community
involvement, such as Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), may provide an approach to
establishing and supporting agroforestry. CSA’s usually involve a financial commitment from local
consumers into a farm or growing project in return for a regular share of the produce. This provides
a connection between local farmers and consumers, develops a local food supply, supports the local
community spirit and helps to spread the risks and rewards of farming. As well as the financial
involvement, many CSA’s also have farm work days when members help out with tasks on the farm.
This aspect may be particularly valuable within an agroforestry system where tasks such as tree
pruning or fruit harvesting are labour-intensive and costly. In these cases, it may be possible for
members to commit to a day’s pruning or harvesting in return for wood fuel (thus reducing the costs
and difficulties of dealing with woody waste) or fruit.
5.4 LEADER funding
The LEADER approach is a delivery mechanism for Axis 4 of the RDP funding, promoting a
community-led, bottom-up approach to rural development and improving the rural economy.
Regional Implementation Plans identify regional and sub-regional priorities and delivery of the RDP
for England, and Local Action Groups implement Local Development Strategies setting out plans for
their areas. Grants are available for farmers, foresters, small rural businesses and community groups
and charities for a wide range of activities including farm diversification, adding value to timber and
projects that will benefit local communities. Depending on the themes identified by the Local Action
Groups, the establishment of an agroforestry enterprise, especially one that involves the local
community, may be eligible for funding.
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
26
6. References Bhagwat, S.A., Willis, K.J., Birks, H.J.B., Whittaker, R.J., 2008. Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23, 261-267.
Borin, M., Passoni, M., Thiene, M., Tempesta, T., 2009. Multiple benefits of buffer strips in farming areas. European Journal of Agronomy.
Cannell, M.G.R., Van Noordwijk, M., Ong, C.K., 1996. The central agroforestry hypothesis: the trees must acquire resources that the crop would not otherwise acquire. Agroforestry Systems 34, 27-31.
Cooper, T., Hart, K., Baldock, D., 2009. The provision of Public Goods Through Agriculture in the European Union. Report prepared for DG Agriculture and Rural Development Contract no. 30-CE-0233091/00-28. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.
DARDNI, 2010. A Guide to the Single Farm Payment (SFP) Scheme. DARDNI.
DEFRA, 2007. UK Biomass Strategy. DEFRA.
DEFRA, 2009. Guidance for Farmers in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. DEFRA.
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2007. Countryside Management Scheme 2007-2013 Information Booklet. DARDNI.
Dupraz, C., Liagre, F., Manchon, O., Lawson, G., 2004. Implications of legal and policy regulations on rural development: the challenge of silvoarable agroforestry in Europe. IUFRO Division 1 Conference: Meeting the Challenge: Silvicultural research in a changing world, Montpellier, France.
European Commission, 2009. Report on implementation of forestry measures under the Rural Development Regulation 1698/2005 for the period 2007-2013. European Commission. Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development.
European Commission, 2010. Rural Development Policy. European Network for Rural Development.
European Council, 2005. Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). EuropeanCouncil.
Forestry Commission England, 2009. EWGS 7. Woodland Creation Grant Guide.
Jose, S., 2009. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agroforestry Systems 76, 1-10.
Jose, S., Gillespie, A.R., Pallardy, S.G., 2004. Interspecific interactions in temperate agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 61, 237-255.
Lawson, G., Dupraz, C., Liagre, F., Moreno, G., Paris, P., Papanastasis, V.P., 2005. Deliverable 9.3: Options for agroforestry policy in the European Union. Unpublished report submitted to the European Union as part of the Silvoarable Agroforetsry for Europe (SAFE) contract QLK5-CT-2001-00560.
Montagnini, F., Nair, P.K.R., 2004. Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 61, 281-295.
Agroforestry Policy Review Organic Research Centre, 2010
27
Nair, V.D., Graetz, D.A., 2004. Agroforestry as an approach to minimising nutrient loss from heavily fertilised soils: The Florida experience. Agroforestry Systems 61, 269-279.
Natural England, 2009. Energy Crops Scheme. Establishment Grants Handbook. Natural England.
Natural England, 2010a. Entry Level Stewardship Handbook. Natural England.
Natural England, 2010b. Higher Level Stewardship Handbook. Natural England.
Natural England, 2010c. Organic Entry Level Stewardship Handbook. Natural England.
Oelbermann, M., Voroney, R.P., Gordon, A.M., 2004. Carbon sequestration in tropical and temperate agroforestry systems: a review with examples from Costa Rica and southern Canada. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104, 359-377.
Peichl, M., Thevathasan, N.V., Gordon, A.M., Huss, J., Abohassan, R.A., 2006. Carbon sequestration potentials in temperate tree-based intercropping systems, southern Ontario, Canada. 2006 66, 243-257.
Porter, J., Costanza, R., Sandhu, H., Sigsgaard, L., Wratten, S., 2009. The value of producing food, energy and ecosystem services within an agro-ecosystem. Ambio 38, 186-193.
Read, D.J., Freer-Smith, P.H., Morison, J.I.L., Hanley, N., West, C.C., Snowdon, P. (Eds.), 2009. Combating climate change – a role for UK forests. An assessment of the potential of the UK’s trees and woodlands to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The synthesis report. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh.
RPA, 2008. Single Payment Scheme: The Guide to Cross Compliance in England. Rural Payments Agency.
RPA, 2010. Single Payment Scheme Handbook for England 2010. Including the Area Payment for Nuts, Protein Crop Premium, and teh 2011 Uplands Transitional Payment. Rural Payments Agency.
Schoeneberger, M.M., 2009. Agroforestry: working trees for sequestering carbon on agricultural lands. Agroforestry Systems 75, 27-37.
Schroeder, P., 1994. Carbon storage benefits of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 27, 89-97.
The Scottish Government, 2010. Single Farm Payment Scheme. Notes for Guidance. The Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
Welsh Assembly Government, 2010a. 2010 Single Application Rules Booklet. Welsh Assembly Government.
Welsh Assembly Government, 2010b. Glastir AWE Booklet 1: General Guidance 2012 - Part 1 The All-Wales Element.
Welsh Assembly Government, 2010c. Glastir AWE Booklet 2: Technical Guidance 2012
World Agroforestry Centre, 2008. Transforming Lives and Landscapes. Strategy 2008-2015. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.